The Sun perks up some real spots

There’s no guessing about these. They aren’t anemic sunspecks that may or may not have been visible a couple of centuries ago. They are the real deal. Sunspot group 1026 on the lower left edge and newly formed group 1027 above the equator. While a couple of spots aren’t yet enough to end the solar drought we’ve seen, they are encouraging.

Image: MDI from SOHO

All of the spots are about the size of the Earth. You may recall that group 1026 was first, ahem, “spotted” by the stereo behind system which we covered last week on WUWT. The two groups have the potential to produce some solar flares. Group 1026 produced a few B-Class solar flares, 1027 has been quiet. Here’s the SWPC report defining both regions:

The 10.7 cm solar radio flux took a jump to 75 today, it may go higher as 1026/1027 continues to grow. It remains to be seen whether this is just a temporary energetic burst, with a lapse back to spotlessness, or if it heralds a new more active period of solar cycle 24.

If a sun spot remains on the face of the sun for a week does it count as one spot, 7 spots, or something else entirely? When multiple spots appear do they count as multiple spots or just one group, i.e. 1027 above is one group but it has 2 spots?

Its about dang time. Now lets see some real numbers up on the board. Note that the Team’s fellow travellers at NASA were predicting we’d be at solar max by now. There’s a long way to go for that to happen, or is this solar max?

\o/ I hope I don’t freeze at work this winter. On the other hand I hope it doesn’t get too warm til January after the U.N. Danish group hug at the end of the year. ^^
I still not hopeful we can avoid the political Armageddon that is about to happen next year as the AGW forces become more integrated into our daily lives with their plans on global (control) governance.
Back to the sun, lets say a prayer for Henrik Svensmark’s cloud experiment and the final death of AGW >:)

I read from David Archibald that there is a lag of about one year from the time of sunspots activity (or inactivity) to feel its impact on the Earth’s climate. The solar wind travels far away into space and push away some galactic cosmic rays. When solar wind is weak (which also corresponds to few or zero sunspots), more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere, more low-lying clouds, global cooling.
Is my understanding of Dr. Archibald’s explanation correct?

Justin Sane (21:45:11) :
If a sun spot remains on the face of the sun for a week does it count as one spot, 7 spots, or something else entirely? When multiple spots appear do they count as multiple spots or just one group, i.e. 1027 above is one group but it has 2 spots?
What counts is the situation at a given day. Also, what is most important is the number of sunspot *groups*. Solar “activity” can be given either as the number of groups, or as the so-called Wolf number Zurich sunspot number). The latter is the “sunspot relative number” R introduced by Wolf in the 19th century. The formula for R is R = k*(10*g+f), where g is the number of groups, and f (from the German “Fleck” = spot) is the number of individual spots. One isolated spot counts as a “group”, hence 11 (= 1 group + 1 spot). The factor k has been introduced to remove systematic differences between values determined by different observers.
Neglecting the factor k (that is, putting it equal to 1), on the SOHO MDI image of Sept. 22 at 23:26, we see one group with 2 spots (1 big and 1 very small), and the newer group with 4 spots (2 big and 2 small ones). So the Wolf number is 10*2 + 6 = 26.

As a layman its hard to fathom solar physics and the effect of solar minimum on our climate.http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl3.html
In the northern hemisphere winter of 1779-80 the US suffered one of its worst winters on record. The two winters between 1783-86 saw the Thames freeze over and again in 1788-89 there was a Frost Fair on the river.
This all happened before the Dalton Minimum. Solar cycle 3 began in June 1775 with a smoothed sunspot number of 7.2 and ended in September 1784.

Whilst these two new regions are indeed welcome, I am still suspicious of ramp up having truly started yet. If you take a look at the SC 4/5 minimum transition (Dalton begins) : http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin.htm
Notice that activity from August 1798 to May 1799 appeared to be ramping up well, however a crash occurred in August 1799 (= false start) causing the smoothed curve to dip slightly ( although not lower than in May 1798 ).
The current minimum is fairly identical (see comparison graph) given that similar crashes have occurred (Dec 08, March 09, August 09).
Although it is still to early to determine if a double minimum is occurring, it is possible that we may see more crashes and a slow ramp up to smoothed max +- 70.

I think its a beautiful sight to behold. 2 emerging sunspots, one in each hemisphere. Only thing missing is a S.C. 23 sunspot, emerging in the middle. Though I doubt one will emerge, and these two will surely fade in a few days. That has been the trend.
Have we seen the last of S.C. 23 sunspots? Its been some months since we’ve seen one. Its been 13 some years since the last minimum and it was bound to come to an end, regardless how NOAA or SIDC record this. I’m sure debates will arise regarding minimum this go around just as the one in ’96. This solar minimum has frustrated David Hathaway & Co. to no end, much like the stooges over at NSIDC over Arctic Sea Ice. The Sun and the Earth just will not cooperate with their global warming ( sorry, climate change) agenda. I can only speculate that both the Sun and the Earth have done enough minimizing to thwart their efforts regarding alarmism.
What I would like to see now is some predictions regarding total spotless day numbers for this minimum, leading up to the next solar maximum. Can the spotless day figures reach 900 or greater. I think it has a 80% chance or greater to do so. Could someone here in the WUWT community work on that? I would love to see something along those lines.
-David Alan-

el gordo (01:27:02) :
As a layman its hard to fathom solar physics and the effect of solar minimum on our climate.
Don’t worry – some of the ‘solar physicists’ seem a bit confused also.http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl3.html
In the northern hemisphere winter of 1779-80 the US suffered one of its worst winters on record. The two winters between 1783-86 saw the Thames freeze over and again in 1788-89 there was a Frost Fair on the river.
Your anecdotal evidence is supported by several long term records. Temperatures were declining long before the Dalton Minimum cycles. Few places actually experienced cooling during the Dalton. It’s a bit like the “1970s cooling period”. There wasn’t one. The cooling began in the 1940s and had pretty much bottomed out by the mid-1950s. Of course this doesn’t fit in with the solar cycle activity theory. SC19 which was the strongest cycle recorded began in ~1954 and ended in ~1964. SC20, the ‘weak’ cycle, ended in ~1976 just about the time the late 20th century warming began. This all happened before the Dalton Minimum. Solar cycle 3 began in June 1775 with a smoothed sunspot number of 7.2 and ended in September 1784.
Correct. If solar cycle activity (sunspots) is the main driver of climate and if the current sequence of cycles is mimicking the Dalton period, then current global temperatures should be below 1970s levels. There certainly shouldn’t be discussion on the possibility of record high UAH anomalies as was taking place recently on Lucia’s blog.

tallbloke (00:47:44) :Hey Leif, looks like my prediction of a month or two ago about the cycle getting going in a month or two is coming to pass!
If you say every day it will rain tomorrow, sooner or later it will.

Talk of a return of stronger solar activity it a bit premature. three of the five longest periods since 1849 without a sunspot have occured in the last several years. If you do not count the small microdot sunspot of 20 days ago we went over 70 days in a row without any sunspots, which is the second longest period since 1849 without them.
Solar activity just doesnt change on a dime from what I see.

“If you say every day it will rain tomorrow, sooner or later it will.”
Come on Leif, be a good sport, and give tallbloke some credit, after all he didn’t say this repeatedly as you imply. More interestingly, on what grounds did tallbloke make his prediction. None, I suspect.

O/T Look at this B****t. I hate the Japanese government. My wife is Okinawan, so she aggrees with me. The Japanese are wanting to make an Asian “EU”. Why does everyone want to make a world with one government? That would be the ruin of mankind.
Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2009
Hatoyama takes lead on CO 2 cuts
Beijing, New Delhi seen making big concessions
Compiled from AP, Kyodo
UNITED NATIONS — In the highest-level conference yet on climate change, 100 world leaders gathered at the United Nations on Tuesday to decide how to start an energy revolution.
In his first U.N. speech since taking office, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama pledged that Japan will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels.
Hatoyama also called for the establishment of an international mechanism offering technological and financial support to developing nations as part of efforts to tackle global warming, dubbed the “Hatoyama Initiative.”
He said his government is determined to attain the 25 percent target by mobilizing “all possible measures,” including the creation of a domestic emissions trading system and a program to buy renewable energy at fixed prices, and the possible establishment of a tax to pay for steps against global warming.
However, Hatoyama also stressed that Japan is not committed to achieving the 25 percent goal unless all major emitters agree on ambitious targets as well.
Hatoyama underscored the need to “strategically increase” the amount of funds to help developing countries deal with threats linked to climate change because they are often required to deal with the residual effects of warming caused by other countries.
As a general rule, Hatoyama proposed that all industrialized nations should contribute “a considerable amount of additional funding from the private and public sectors” to help developing countries.
Meanwhile, the most substantial changes were expected to come from what the presidents of China, India and other major economies spelled out for billions of people and their households, businesses and farms in the decades ahead.
Those leaders were expected to make more ambitious commitments than the U.S. leader, whose hands are still tied by Congress.
“We are asking developing countries to do as we say, not as we did,” said Ed Miliband, Britain’s climate secretary, whose nation has pledged to cut carbon emissions by more than a third from 1990 levels by 2020, and said 40 percent of Britain’s electricity by then would come from renewable sources.
Tuesday’s U.N. summit and the G20 summit in Pittsburgh at the end of this week are intended to add pressure on the United States and other rich nations to commit to cuts and provide the billions of dollars needed to help developing nations stop cutting down their forests or burning coal.
China and the U.S. each account for about 20 percent of all the world’s greenhouse gas pollution created when coal, natural gas or oil are burned. The European Union is next, generating 14 percent, followed by Russia and India, which each account for 5 percent.
Chinese President Hu Jintao was expected to lay out new plans for extending China’s energy-saving programs and targets for reducing the “intensity” of its carbon pollution — carbon dioxide emission increases as related to economic growth.
China has been cutting energy intensity for the past four years and was expected to unveil a new carbon intensity goal in a five-year plan for development until 2015. China already has said it is seeking to use 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
India, too, was also expected to draw some of the spotlight for laying out plans for the fifth-biggest contributor of global warming gases to bump up fuel efficiency, burn coal more cleanly, preserve forests and grow more organic crops.
The U.S., under President George W. Bush’s administration, long cited inaction by China and India as the reason for rejecting mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases.
Tuesday’s meeting was intended to rally momentum for crafting a new global climate pact at Copenhagen in December. Bush rejected the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for cutting global emissions of warming gases, which expires at the end of 2012, based on its impact on the U.S. economy and exclusion of major developing nations such as China and India, both major polluters.
But neither China nor India say they will agree to binding greenhouse gas cuts like those envisioned in a new climate pact to start in 2013. They question why they should, when not even the U.S. will agree to join rich nations in scaling back their pollution.
The EU is urging other rich countries to match its pledge to cut emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, and has said it would cut up to 30 percent if other rich countries follow suit.

The Sun is going to have to do better than 1 week of spots in 10 weeks.
I remain skeptical of any implications of ramp.

I agree – from recent activity, this is as much a signal of a another spike as it is of a ramp.
Over the last several months of visual observations, we’ve only had spikes.
Over the last few decades, a ramp should’ve started a couple years ago.
Over the last couple of centuries, it’s clear that past solar forecasting has left something to be desired. (And present forecasting techniques are in a testing phase.)
For now, let’s just be happy that Bill Livingston (and all other solar observers) have s couple spots that are easy to analyze.
I’d pull out my telescope except that it’s cloudy today.

I’ve tried to convince myself that there is something to the whole “Svensmark/Sunspot” thing; but it’s hard to do. Every time you get down close you end up trying to jam things into places where they really don’t fit.
Right now, I’m much more interested in finding someone who can tell me what the SOI is going to do.

O/T
Also look at the hate the world has towards American progress, prosperity and most of all freedom. I am stationed here on Okinawa, so trust me when I say the Japanese government taxes the life out of the people here. The people’s standard of living is way below ours. They cram families into little apartments, rent is very high, electricity is very costly, water is expensive, I can not go to a grocery store here and expect 2000 Yen to buy much( a piece of fruit, piece of bread, and a drink to wash it down). My wife had to pay the equivalent of $2,000 to the Japanese government when she did not even have a job(she was pregnant and stayed home for several months after my son’s birth. There Health Care is cheap it is provided by the government, but me and my wife waited more than an hour in the waiting room for the doctor to see her when she was having strong contractions. But even worse than that, to get my son’s shots and physical check-up it took 4 hours in the waiting area!!!! There was no privacy what so ever all they used was a curtain to separate you from the waiting area the hospitals are dirty and not up to American standards, and none is friendly because thier paychecks are coming from the government. Which by the way the government of Japan pays it’s top RN’s only $2200.00 per month nation wide. I know because my wife is an RN. This goes for all medical practices, unless of course you are paying for cosmetic medical care, believe me you will pay it is very expensive, but atleast you get privacy and a sterile environment.
Learn from my experiences, only free markets and capitalism can promote such high standards that America has. I call it the American standard , and not one of any of the countries I have visited come remotely close to touching the American standard. Any way that was my two cents.

I’ve been following the GONG far side imagery for quite some time and those images seemed to follow a pattern in which the far side images showed the “plage” regions (i.e. the shaded portions of the images) as increasing & subsiding every week or two. Sunspots seemed to appear predominantly during the increasing part of the cycle (i.e. when the GONG farside images were darkening/dark) and tended to subside when the GONG farside images likewise subsided. See: http://gong.nso.edu/data/farside/
Over the past few weeks, GONG’s farside images seem to still show the same cyclic period…but…they seem much darker at all parts of the weekish cycle (i.e. the more quiescent part of the cycle seems more “active” and the active part seems even more active than before). This suggests to me that solar activity is, finally, picking up with the new cycle & the images presented on the GONG farside website are illustrating this.
Perhaps someone knowledgable can explain what I’m observing?

Bill, you know better than that. The difference between the output of the Sun (and I mean all of its components) felt here in the atmosphere we walk and talk in during a typical ice age and during the warmth of the ’98 El Nino is such a tiny fraction. Statements like yours do not help educate the masses that may not have experienced a decent Science background. In fact, I believe it continues to prevent basic understanding of how our planet functions as a climate system.

I’ve tried to convince myself that there is something to the whole “Svensmark/Sunspot” thing
Svensmark’s theory relates cloud cover to solar magnetic effects, not spots per se. Sunspots are merely a proxy of overall solar activity, including magnetic activity.

So if the sun’s activity changes climate, how long does it need to remain inactive before we see cold winters in the NH like I remember from the 60’s? Seems like the the stage is fully set what with sun’s sleepy state, recent volcanic activity, PDO negative , AMO (is it negative yet)? Or perhaps this is all just masking the overall warming?

don rayburg (06:46:44) :
A couple of you mentioned this is a good thing? Why?

Because we don’t need a lot of people to die from the effects of cold in order to prove the warmers wrong. Not something we should wish for even though it would be an emphatic exclamation/nail in their “climate change” coffin.

Mr. Alex (03:26:15) :Could anyone inform me where I could find the monthly international sunspot numbers for the Layman’s Sunspot Count, ( e.g. July International was 3.5 , but in Layman’s? ). Thanks in advance.http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
If ever in doubt a google of “Laymans Sunspot Count” will acheive number 1 position.

The sun will take a long time to ramp up. It has been dormant long enough for my purposes. It will take a long time for the Sun to ramp up to full strength in order to significantly heat up the planet again. The reason why dumb people don’t notice the Sun’s influence on our climate is because of it’s lag effect. The ocean batteries have already significantly drained. It will take at least 5 years to recharge them. Expect continued colder climate for at least 5 more years.
Say “Tin” ten times before reading the next line. Please don’t cheat.
What is aluminum foil made of?
Tin right?
Wrong, it’s made of aluminum.
8 out of 10 dumb people will say Tin.
This is how they brainwash you.
The more they repeat a lie, the more people believe it.

Yeah, I know all that, Mark. But, when you get away from the smoothed lines, and the hand-waving it’s hard to make the timelines work. At least, in any number that would seem to imply something more than coincidence.
Anyway, I’m about to get on board with Pamela (I think it was.)
The Three most important things about weather/climate are: 1) The Wind,
2) The Wind, and
3) The “Wind.”

One isolated spot counts as a “group”, hence 11 (= 1 group + 1 spot). The factor k has been introduced to remove systematic differences between values determined by different observers.

Layman question:
Doesn’t the “group” designation derive in part from its initial relative size?
I thought it had to be… well, bigger than a fleck… kind of “groupish-looking” to be a group. Hope this isn’t too technical.

“Bill, you know better than that… Statements like yours do not help educate the masses that may not have experienced a decent Science background. In fact, I believe it continues to prevent basic understanding of how our planet functions as a climate system.”
Whassup Bill, did ya tell a dirty limerick, wear Orange on St. Patty’s, what? Frankly, I don’t believe you’ve earned the dissin’.

Bill P (10:21:16) :
Look at the area in SWPC/NOAA: the smallest is 10 x 10E6
How many pixels on a SOHO MDI does that compute to?
The diameter of the Sun in pixels currently is 997-27=970.
Radius is 485.
Pi * R squared = 738981 pixels
So, 1 pixel is 1.35x10E6
7 pixels = 9.47x 10E6
SSN11026 = 30 pixels or 40.6x10E6
SSN11027 = 194 pixes or 262.5 x 10E6
That is without computing foreshortening.
So, if a Tiny Tim shows up with 1 pixel, do you now understand what the fuss is all about?

Philip T. Downman ‘Now we are waiting for Livingston and Penn measuring the magnetic field of those spots. One would expect 2000 Gauss or less?”
On another board, http://www.solarcylce24.com, Leif Svalgaard told us that Bill Livingston would have the use of the telescope on Saturday. So if 1026 or 1027 or both are still around this week-end, we may get some data.

These are temperature graphs, in wide use until mid 1990, also quoted by IPCC in their early publications.http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GraphA-B.jpg
Graph A was created by climatologist Hubert Lamb to represent the temperature variation of Central England over the last 1100 years. Graph B shows changes in regional temperature (Europe and eastern North America), compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy. Correlation between two graphs for period 1600 – 1900, is practically nonexistent, Rsq=0.042.
Graph A uses combination of thermometer readings for the last 300 or so years, and records of growing seasons before then to infer temperature. It was first published in 1965 and has been updated several times since. Notice that temperatures are on a sharp increase at 1650 just as Maunder Minimum started ? Was Lamb out by 50 years, and yet Thames froze 10-11 times during this period, out of about 25 during rest of 500 years (1400-1900). Graph B published in Earth Quest in 1991 is heavily biased by North American temperatures; was Jack Eddy personally biased towards Maunder Minimum?
Any expert opinions?

“el gordo (01:27:02) :
As a layman its hard to fathom solar physics and the effect of solar minimum on our climate.http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl3.html
In the northern hemisphere winter of 1779-80 the US suffered one of its worst winters on record. The two winters between 1783-86 saw the Thames freeze over and again in 1788-89 there was a Frost Fair on the river.
This all happened before the Dalton Minimum. Solar cycle 3 began in June 1775 with a smoothed sunspot number of 7.2 and ended in September 1784.”
While, of course, temperatures were trending rather dramatically down during that period, I think it’s worth noting that the particularly cold periods you cited (with the exception of the 1779-1780 winter in the US) were closely connected with the eruption of Laki in Iceland in 1783, which was (if I recall correctly) the second-largest volcanic eruption in recorded human history–only exceeded by an earlier eruption of the same volcano in 934, referred to as the Eldgjá eruptions. That eruption, combined with several others in the following years, released tremendous quantities of SO2 and volcanic ash, leading to the deathly cold volcanic winters you mention. Of course, the general chilliness of the time helped a good deal, too, but don’t forget Laki’s contribution!

Sorry for the repeat post, but I believe I made an error previously; the Eldgjá eruptions were the largest flood-basalt eruption in recorded human history, with Laki being second-largest. In terms of material ejected, they were easily beaten by several more violent, explosive eruptions. Still, though, the SO2 released was quite sufficient to have a climatic effect for a few years after those eruptions.

It looks like the spot in the southern half of the solar disk is starting to fade now, if the other sunspots start fading soon it would show the sun still isn’t producing sunspots that survive one entire solar rotation.
If the Sun goes blank again than it means an even longer wait for the sun to start producing sunspots on a regular basis.

Adam from Kansas (15:00:31) :
I haven’t done the foreshortening corrections for 1024 yet, but 1026 & 1027 are half of the umbra counts that 1024 was.http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/SSN1024a.txt
Deep Solar Minimum is still in play until further progress of the Sun.

Maybe Livingston & Penn can get a reading off the facula. My understanding of them is that it is very elusive. With the rather stark contrast presented on the SOHO MDI images of late, perhaps this is possible.

Mr. Alex (12:06:49) :
We may have won the aluminium debate but we lost on sulphuric/sulphur.
Is there a good read somewhere on the relationship between solar activity/wind/sunspots etc and climate? I am curious about the lag mentioned above.

Your comment is awaiting moderation
By this you really mean:
Your comment is awaiting censorship
Self righteous prick.REPLY: Oh that’s funny! 🙂 Newsflash. Your experience isn’t unique in the slightest, all messages on moderated blogs get that, it is automatically generated by wordpress.com. About 100,000 people a day making comments on wordpress.com hosted websites get that message, and you are the very first to become irrationally enraged. Congratulations. – A

Pamela Gray (07:09:17) :
“Bill, you know better than that.”
If that was addressed to me and my comment about we don’t need another Little Ice Age, I guess I just meant we don’t need to have any cooling that a less active Sun might produce.
Generally, the Stefan Boltzmann equations show that the Sun would have to vary 5 or 6 times more than seems to occur to have an appreciable impact on our temperatures. Using the full equation as it was meant to be used says that the 1 watt change as occurs during the solar cycle results in only +/- 0.016C change in temperature. An extra 2 or 3 watts during a long solar downturn results in only -0.1C change.

Please shut up, all of you. Everything you say today is vain. Tomorrow a different truth will be accepted, and all the influence of your comments will be lost. Your are all pathetic and arrogant.Reply: You’re skating on thin ice. Be polite. ~dbstealey, moderator.

Pamela/Bill … I think you are underestimating the influence of the sun on our climate (e.g. effect of solar wind). There is a lot we do not know about our star … it would seem from the recent events that we are learning new things all the time.
Jon

Leif Svalgaard (02:50:56) :
tallbloke (00:47:44) :
Hey Leif, looks like my prediction of a month or two ago about the cycle getting going in a month or two is coming to pass!
If you say every day it will rain tomorrow, sooner or later it will.
I realised after I posted that you’d come back with some such BS.
I have only made one prediction, backed by a graph I produced.
You are becoming noticeably careless with the truth.

Ah yes, here we are:
tallbloke (06:53:39) : 6th August
I have developed a promising prediction technique.
Here is my prediction for for the Ap index to 2015, with hindcast to demonstrate the techniques power. Ap measures geomagnetic storms, so it means we might be seeing some sunspots within the next couple of months too.http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=ap-prediction.gif
So leif, which other sunspot predictions did I make to warrant your condescension? Put up or shut up.

tallbloke (14:44:12) : Ap measures geomagnetic storms, so it means we might be seeing some sunspots within the next couple of months too.
Unless you spell out how the prediction is made, it has no value [and the fit is not all that good], and of course we’ll be seeing some spots in the months to come.

Leif Svalgaard (16:43:10) :
tallbloke (14:44:12) :
Ap measures geomagnetic storms, so it means we might be seeing some sunspots within the next couple of months too.
Unless you spell out how the prediction is made, it has no value [and the fit is not all that good], and of course we’ll be seeing some spots in the months to come.
So you’ve changed the subject and ducked the issue of your accusation that I had made lots of predictions so one was bound to come true. Unsurprising, because you don’t have a leg to stand on.
To my recollection, we’ve had just 3 decent sized sunspots recently, after many months of solar blankness. This fits my prediction curve. All the predictions by NASA’s solar physicists relying on the Babcock Leighton dynamo theory have failed spectacularly, predicting a strong ramp up of solar cycle 24 nearly two years ago.
How wrong they were.
I will publish details of how my prediction was made in my own sweet time. For me, already knowing the details, it has plenty of value.
We’ll see if solar activity continues to follow my curve.http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=ap-prediction.gif

By The way Leif, in our earlier cosmological discussion, where I questioned the correctness of the big bang theory, I raised the issue of the ‘galactic megawalls’ which you said had been superceded and disproved by newer obs. This claim appears to be incorrect, unless you can direct me to a study?
Tomes makes the following points.
1. Every paper that has been published that has sufficently accurate data (as described by Tifft) and looks for smaller scale redshift periodicity in galaxies has found at least one of the quanta 72, 36, 24, 12 km/s and often more than one. There have been many replications and not a single negative result. This is called the scientific method and criticizing sample sizes is not an adequate response because different samples have been used by different researchers.
2. Papers that use the correlation function in 3D do not show these shorter period variations. That proves that they are not spatial structures and that the interpretation of redshift as totally a velocity measurement is wrong.
3. Most papers that have looked at large scale periodicity have found the 12,800 km/s period (z=.043 or 128/h Mpc) and often fractions of this also (1/2 and 1/3). These periods are found using either redshift periodicity or looking for 3D spacings. There are papers that I referenced showing the clear 3D structure as a type of lattice.
4. A number of studies have been performed in special frames to investigate the whole sky synchronization of smaller scale (~72 km/s) redshift periodicities. All published studies confirm the presence of such frames. New data continues to support that conclusion. This totally undermines the conventional interpretation of redshift. If it were correct then the whole universe would be a huge conspiracy to make the centre of our galaxy a very special place. I don’t think that anyone believes that.
5. The inescapable conclusion is that Arp and Narlikar are right and that these 72 km/s and such periodicities are changes by steps in redshift over time, and nothing to do with distance. Because the time taken to travel a distance by light is a linear one, it just looks like a distance relationship. However at the distance scale of galaxies the relationship breaks down because there are traveling wavefronts where the redshift of a galaxy will suddenly change by 72 km/s. So you cannot use that information to calculate distances at that scale.
6. In general galaxies cannot be moving even by 20 km/s. If they were, the whole sky periodicity would be destroyed. And it is there for all to see. In fact, it would be destroyed in even galaxy pairs because of the different orientations that we see them at and the 72 km/s difference between them is prevalent.
7. The virial theorum is not a valid basis for anything because it uses the assumption that redshift measures velocity, and it clearly does not.

Both regions have decreased in size and 1026 has nearly vanished, both spots at their peak combined are smaller than 1024 yet the sunspot number is 32 today? Am I missing something here or is this just good old-fashioned (business-as-usual) bias?

Mr. Alex (01:53:18) :
There is no bias here. Measurements and spot counts are two different animals. You might say that they are not correlated, as they depart company at both the low and high ends.
Blame it on Wolf.

tallbloke (00:22:25) :This claim appears to be incorrect, unless you can direct me to a study?
How can you even say that, when you don’t know about a study. What you are saying is just a statement of your ignorance. Anyway, here is one of several links: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366 Most Scientists normally don’t waster breath on refuting nonsense.
Tomes is ‘not even wrong’. This is just incredible nonsense. BTW, galaxies move in space around in their various groups and clumps, but the cosmological redshift is not due to movement at att. There is no velocity. It is space that is expanding, not the galaxies moving.
rbateman (08:53:55) :You might say that they are not correlated
Spot counts and areas are very strongly correlated on the scale where it matters, e.g. monthly, or yearly. From day to day the correlation is also strong, but complex. If you have a group with area of dark pixels of 5000 microhems, you can be DAMN sure it has spots too. Conversely, if it has no spots, there will be no dark pixels and hence an area of zero.

Leif Svalgaard (10:28:58) :
Where the spot count and the area measurements agree is numerical in nature.
What matters is a matter of opinion, and source of much confusion.
Day to day, the correlation varies according to the size of the spot, being way off when at low values and high values.
Which is to say that the Sunspot count has it’s uses: High precision not being one of them.
This is why so many keep stumbling over the same issue, Leif.
They expect high precision out of modern science, and when they examine the spot count, they don’t find it, and it puzzles them.
The answer to that puzzle is that some in high places decided in the late 70’s that measuring spots was too burdensome.
Ok. The Galaxy Zoo project started off with the same assumption, but later discovered that even ordinary folks enjoy being more precise, and they are capable of it.
Back to the Wolf Sunpot Count system:
It is this natural bent towards more precision that led to the counting of smaller and smaller spots at the same value.
Self-feeding problem.

Tenuc (09:27:11) :
Not entirely, but 1026 is producing a lot of facula (brighter than the quiet sun), whereas 1027 is not.
1024, just before it went off the limb July 10, began producing facula. The rebirth of this area as 1026 began (from what we can see) with even more facula.
I can still project this bright area as of a few minutes ago, being 1/3 radii from the limb.

bill (20:01:23) :
Smokey (19:16:00) :
“This little corner of the web” is the world’s “Best Science” site, and has more traffic than any of the censorship prone alarmist sites.
Traffic does not equal quality of science.
Logically then, “consensus does not equal quality of science”.

Leif Svalgaard (10:28:58) :
tallbloke (00:22:25) :
This claim appears to be incorrect, unless you can direct me to a study?
How can you even say that, when you don’t know about a study. What you are saying is just a statement of your ignorance. Anyway, here is one of several links: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366 Most Scientists normally don’t waster breath on refuting nonsense.
Well Leif, what you’ve written is ‘not even wrong’. Read into the subject. The data used by the authors you link to does not have sufficient resolution to detect the ‘quantised redshift’ periodicities I was referring to, and in any case it is entire galaxies which exhibit this, not just quasars.Tomes is ‘not even wrong’. This is just incredible nonsense. BTW, galaxies move in space around in their various groups and clumps, but the cosmological redshift is not due to movement at att. There is no velocity. It is space that is expanding, not the galaxies moving.
It is you who is wrong. The local effect of the motion of Earth and the solar system relative to the galactic centre, and the motion of our local galaxy relative to the CMBR need to be calculated into the equation, which then reveals the harmonically related steps in redshift observed by Tift, Arp, Guthrie, Napier, Arlikar and others. Newer observations have not refuted this, and the newer obs you referred to don’t have the requisite resolution. The local motion of clustered galaxies at the distances under discussion is negligible, and can be accounted for through averaging of the cluster anyway.
Get off your high horse and get your facts straight before trying to rubbish people who obviously know more than you about the subject.

This is what I’ve come to expect from watching Jan Janssens’ trend analysis, that the sun is about 3/4’s of the way through this long minimum.http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution
If its spotless trend asymptotes before January 2010 it’d be bucking the general trend for minima of this nature. It’s not nearly a full 2 SD from the median for 19th C. solar cycles, but it’s well off the median amongst the quieter minima of that time.
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck & smells like a duck …

Tallbloke
A quick look at google shows a wiki article that quotes early research showing quantised redshifts (not the quantisation you quote 72 years being smallest quantisation) but the majority of the later research finds little if any evidence for quantisation.
A good 30% of the google hits are from creationists sites trying to disprove the big-bang to further their beliefs.
—-
No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data
Authors: E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox, M.R. Merrifield (University of Nottingham)
(Submitted on 6 Aug 2002)
Abstract: We have used the publicly available data from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that there is a periodicity in the redshift distribution of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) found projected close to foreground galaxies. These data provide by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study, yielding 1647 QSO-galaxy pairs. There is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency.
Famed modern geocentrist Gerardus Bouw declares that redshift quantization implies that the Earth is at the center of the universe in his book Geocentricity (Cleveland , 1992).
Answers in Genesis discusses Halton Arp’s advocacy of redshift quantization as evidence against the Big Bang

Can someone explain how such small redshifts can be detected?
The earth is being flung around like a Lotto ball, The atmospheric density is certainly not stable.
A few hundred nanometres of movement would upset readings.
So how is it done – a question not a criticism!

tallbloke (13:47:53) :get your facts straight before trying to rubbish people who obviously know more than you about the subject.
Most of those folks are pseudo-scientists [creationists and the like] and it is not so much them that I rubbish [as they do not post here], it is you.
And try to understand that you are confused about the different sources of the redshifts. The motion of the Earth through space, the motions of the Galaxy within of local group of ~19 galaxies, and the motion of our local group with your local super cluster all gives rise to a [small] combined signal in the measured redshift, but the largest part of the cosmological redshift, e.g. from a quasar with a redshift corresponding to 6 times the speed of light does not arise from motion through space at all. Instead, space is expanding, stretching the light we observed and making it redder. no motions are involved.
What Arp and some of those people were trying to do was to argue that the redshift was due to matter trown out of distant galaxies at high speeds. But all of that is water under the bridge a long time ago. Nobody pays any attention to those [observationally disproved] ideas, except assorted pseudo-scientists and creationists, of which we unfortunately have a fairly high [and vocal] proportion on this very blog.

tallbloke (13:47:53) :observed by Tift, Arp, Guthrie, Napier, Arlikar and others. […]
Get off your high horse and get your facts straight
Fact: ‘Arlikar’ does not exist, except on pseudo-scientific websites wherefrom ignorant people pick up their garbage. The name is Narlikar, and he was a co-worker of Hoyle, trying to maintain the Steady-State hypothesis, and BTW was no observer.

bill (04:41:31) :
They take a spectrographic image of a galaxies nucleus.
Sloan Digital Sky Survey has lots of them.
NED has a search form for the object you wish to check for redshift data:http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/z.html
The Milky Way, such as it is structured and our location within it, interferes also.
The deepest redshifts are commonly to be found at 90 degrees or close to it from the galaxy plane (Lynx in the N. Hemisphere). High-latitude galactic clouds do the rest of the interfering, so one has to avoid them (pick the holes) also.
Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field areas were chosen specifically to take advantage of these facts. They didn’t just aim Hubble anywhere.

Leif Svalgaard (07:39:53) :
space is expanding,
All your reasoning for this proposal rests on circular definitions and self referential arguments, dressed up with a lot of extraneous supposition and observations reinterpreted to fit a half baked theory.
Other theories such as Hoyle’s steady state theory also have their own lacunae and difficulties. At least they don’t rely on dark matter and the biggest violation of the most fundamental law of physics though.
I don’t regard any of these theories as supreme, or correct, or wrong. I recognise them for what they are. Tentative hypotheses with known difficulties. In short, I approach them scientifically.
And I don’t needlessly slag people off while I do it either.

bill (04:18:12) :
Tallbloke
A quick look at google shows a wiki article that quotes early research showing quantised redshifts (not the quantisation you quote 72 years being smallest quantisation) but the majority of the later research finds little if any evidence for quantisation.
“1. Many of the surveys use data that is not accurate enough. Tifft has shown that statistically (and I am a trained statistician and can confirm this) you cannot find a 72 km/s periodicity if the data has typical errors of more than 18 km/s. I would say that it is highly desirable that the data be more accurate than 10 km/s. I have been told that you will not get these results when you use the newer, bigger surveys of galaxies. That is correct, because the 2sF survey has accuracy of +/-85 km/s and the SDSS survey +/-30 km/s, both insufficient to detect a 72 km/s periodicity.”—-
No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data
Authors: E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox, M.R. Merrifield (University of Nottingham)
(Submitted on 6 Aug 2002)
“2. Most of the astronomers do not use the reference frame of the centre of our galaxy. We are moving around the galaxy at something like 220 km/s and so depending on which direction in the sky we look, this affects each measurement by anything from -220 km/s through to +220 km/s, which would obviously totally destroy the delicate pattern. Actually, later Tifft reported that the periodicity was also present in the rest frame of the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) and we have a 370 km/s velocity relative to that.”http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a?cat=19
I’ll try to find what the error margin on the 2dF survey is compared with the 2sF survey Ray Tomes refers to. I’ll also try to access the paper you reference to find out the rest frame they run their calculations from.
Proving there are no periodicities from the incorrect rest frame is about as useful as proving there is no link between the sun and temperature if you use the wrong statistical technique to look for it.

tallbloke (09:32:07) :http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a?cat=19
Figure 2 shows the result form what is claimed to be 48 spirals in the Virgo cluster in 11 km/s bins with no smoothing. The total range is from 0 to 1100 km/s, so there should be 100 bins. When you try to distribute 48 spirals into 100 bins, at least 52 bins have to be empty, which they clearly are not…
The ‘trained statistian’ really has a problem here. And what happened to your ‘common sense’.
[snip, Leif please try to be more polite ~ ctm]
[snip]
I’ll help you along. Herehttp://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/galgrps/vir.html
are the best modern data from the Virgo cluster [unless I’m mistaken – and I’m not in the mood to chase down every single measurement]. There is a table with the 164 largest galaxies [includes all of the spirals]. The average speed is 1571 km/s. All speeds are relative to the CMB. You can see there is a large scatter because of motions of the individual galaxies about the center of mass of the cluster. And here is a histogram of the distribution in 11 km/s bins as suggested by your link: http://www.leif.org/research/Virgo-Cluster-Velocities.png As you and everybody else can see, there is no clustering about velocities 71 km/s apart [marked by the vertical lines]. This is science, and independent verification [debunking in this case]. This is the view from the high horse.

Leif Svalgaard (11:29:24) :tallbloke (09:32:07) :http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a?cat=19
What Arp was trying to show [and failed] was that there were large explosions in galaxy clusters that would perturb or propel waves of galaxies every so often. That would produce peaks [not observed, but let that slide] at regular interval in the observed redshift. But as you can see there is already a very large spread [between 0 and 3000 km/s with mean at 1591]. The redshift we observe is the combination of real motions of the galaxies about the center of mass of the cluster and of the cosmological redshift that does not correspond to any motion of the galaxies. Since Virgo is relatively close, the two effects are about equal, but as we go to galaxies farther away, the [real] motions within the group become negligible compared to the cosmological redshift, the latter not the result of motion at all, but to expansion of space.

Leif Svalgaard (11:49:09) :The redshift we observe is the combination of real motions of the galaxies about the center of mass of the cluster and of the cosmological redshift that does not correspond to any motion of the galaxies.
So, even if Arp and Tiffs were correct, those peaks would still only reflect the periodic explosions in groups, but not have any bearing on the BB or cosmology. The mixing of such things is a sure sign of the ignorance that surrounds this subject and how such may be used to further whatever other agenda may be peddled. ctm, this is but a general comment not directed at anybody in particular.

Leif, your data comes from LEDA, but you are using it at too small a scale to see anything interesting, because the error range is too large to resolve the smaller periodicities. However, the LEDA data is very useful in a broader analysis, see below.
The LEDA galaxy distribution
I. Maps of the local universe[*]
H. Courtois1 – G. Paturel1 – T. Sousbie1 – F. Sylos Labini2
1 – Centre de Recherche Astronomique de Lyon (CRAL), 9 avenue Charles André, 69561 Saint Genis Laval Cedex, France
2 – Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, Université Paris XI, Bâtiment 210, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
Received 17 November 2003 / Accepted 1 March 2004
“One structure that can be seen very clearly in Fig. 5 is a kind of wave in the structures appearing in the upper left part of the figure and in the lower right. Such a deformation in a 2D map can be due to a large scale plane of galaxies in the 3D distribution.”
“In Fig. 9, one can see the first public datarelease (DR1) of the Sloan Digitized Sky Survey (SDSS; Abazajian et al. 2003). The first amazing fact to note is the continuity of bubbles, walls and void sequences up to a scale 6 times larger than the one we just discussed: up to z =0.2. The second point is the structure size: we can see a chain (or a wall) of galaxies extending about 300 Mpc. As a comparison, we plotted the CfA2 (Huchra & Burg 1992; Huchra et al. 1995) redshift survey containing the Great Wall of galaxies, which is about 100 Mpc long. We are now seeing a structure 10 times larger than the Great Wall. The 2dF redshift survey (Colless et al. 2001) probed a region with comparable depth to SDSS, revealing large-scale structure with equally impressive detail and complexity. Combined, these redshift surveys suggest structures as large as 300 Mpc in extent, probably associated with “walls” of galaxy clusters.”
“One structure that can be seen very clearly in Fig. 5 is a kind of wave in the structures appearing in the upper left part of the figure and in the lower right. Such a deformation in a 2D map can be due to a large scale plane of galaxies in the 3D distribution. This wave passes through Perseus-Pisces, Pavo-Indus, Hydra-Centaurus, Virgo and Coma superclusters.”
“We can really begin to speak about hierarchy in the large-scale structures, another word for scale invariance. Studies of the statistical properties of such distributions are ongoing and we will present them soon.”
“With the astonishing large-scale structure observed by 2MASS, SDSS, 2dF and through the LEDA archive, it is increasingly clear that cosmological models must account for structures ten times larger than previously simulated, going up to 300 Mpc long. We cannot simply estimate the scale at which one is looking at the structure, just by looking at the maps: we are seeing similar structures at different scales.”
=============================================
So despite the resolution being insufficient to identify the 72km/s periodicity found by Tifft, Guthrie, Napier and others in their small scale – high accuracy studies, astronomers are currently discovering large scale structures which “look similar at different scales”. In other words, harmonically related structures.
The Big Bang theory didn’t predict this, not does it have any particularly convincing explanations for it. It does dovetail perfectly with the wave harmonic theory of the universe however.
I love puzzles and mysteries .. 🙂

Leif Svalgaard (11:49:09) :
Leif Svalgaard (11:29:24) :
tallbloke (09:32:07) :http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a?cat=19
What Arp was trying to show [and failed] was that there were large explosions in galaxy clusters that would perturb or propel waves of galaxies every so often.
Yeah, but this is not what Ray Tomes or I am trying to discuss. Whatever Arp’s theory was is not so important, it’s the data he collected which matters.
What Guthrie and Napier set out to do was to disprove Tiffts findings. Instead, they ended up agreeing with them and extending them.

tallbloke (12:10:11) :The Big Bang theory didn’t predict this, not does it have any particularly convincing explanations for it. It does dovetail perfectly with the wave harmonic theory of the universe however.
The fine-structure of the universe: voids and sheets, etc is, of course, a fact, but has nothing to do with the Big Bang. the structure is due to gravity. Simple computer simulations show that if you have even the slightest clumpiness, those will be magnified by gravity [especially in the presence of dark matter, without BTW the clusters would have long since dispersed.]. the clumpiness is measured by the number Q = 1/100,000 and is one of the only six numbers that govern our universe: http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/big-theories/recipe-for-the-universe-just-six-numbers-page-5-1_1230.html
And is, indeed, very much part of the BB.I love puzzles and mysteries .. 🙂
There is even more grandeur and wonder in real knowledge. As you go hunting for pseudo-knowledge on the internet, a vast ocean of existing real knowledge lies unexplored before you.

tallbloke (12:19:47) :What Guthrie and Napier set out to do was to disprove Tiffts findings. Instead, they ended up agreeing with them and extending them.
Instead of responding to specific points, e.g. Leif Svalgaard (11:29:24), you just drone on. My criticism of Figure 2 in their paper, you selectively fail to answer.
From the Guthrie and Napier paper:
“No significant periodicity was found for the sample of 77 irregular galaxies.”
Their result [which by no means is accepted, but I don’t want to get into a largely incomprehensible discussion of that] can be interpreted as some kind of flows inside each cluster [and only for spirals] and has no bearing of the BB or cosmology. The most distant object we know has a redshift of 8.2, corresponding to a recessional speed of 2.5 million km/s, which you can compare with your 72 km/s.

Leif, what you consider ‘real knowledge’ I have studied extensively both at university and in my own time. I also study ‘non mainstream’ theories because in them, although they may not have so extensive a supporting structure as the mainstream, there are hidden gems which may be applicable to the future development and refinement of ‘consensus mainstream science’, or indeed a revolutionary new theory which sweeps away the old order. Such is the nature of the progress of discovery.
Your belief in the correctness of the current mainstream consensus cosmology is your affair, just be aware that ultimately, a belief in the Astronomer Royale’s assertion that we are nearly there and we are just mopping up the last few inconsistencies is just that, a belief.
I’m a skeptic, so I like to keep an eye on all the different and competing theories out there, and have no discomfort in knowing that we are nowhere near having ‘real knowledge’, just ever more sophisticated apprehensions and formulations, which may at any time be overturned by a startling new discovery.
That’s the joy of science, it isn’t a rigid dogma. Scientific institutions can tend towards rigidity and dogma however, and turn out a fair number of rigid dogmatists.
I don’t think you are one of them.

tallbloke (13:13:48) :Scientific institutions can tend towards rigidity and dogma however, and turn out a fair number of rigid dogmatists.
I don’t think you are one of them.
I know scientific institutions, and they do not tend to dogma. Every new generation of eager students bent on ‘proving Einstein wrong’, or at least their professor sees to that.
What they do learn is how to distinguish facts from fiction. The seemingly rigid structure comes from the simple fact that science is built on solid ground. There is no such thing as ‘mainstream science’. Science is one. If it is not ‘mainstream’ it is not science. This does not mean that all scientists agree. Disagreement is the life blood of science, but the ‘dogma’ of reason [and observation] eventually resolves every disagreement, or reduces them to irrelevancies.

Leif Svalgaard (12:50:17) :
The most distant object we know has a redshift of 8.2, corresponding to a recessional speed of 2.5 million km/s, which you can compare with your 72 km/s.
As the scientists in the foregoing quotes have discovered, there are structures which appear similar at different scales. The whole point of the harmonic theory is that it scales.Figure 2 shows the result form what is claimed to be 48 spirals in the Virgo cluster in 11 km/s bins with no smoothing. The total range is from 0 to 1100 km/s, so there should be 100 bins. When you try to distribute 48 spirals into 100 bins, at least 52 bins have to be empty, which they clearly are not…
It’s worth reading the paper a bit more closely before jumping to hasty conclusions and intemperate language:http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/18/455-463.pdf
“Fig. 1 shows the power
spectrum of the 48 redshifts obtained after subtraction of this V (solar motion around galactic centre) , while Fig. 2 is a
plot of the redshift differences. A periodicity ~ 71 km s–1 is easily seen by eye; the
power spectrum analysis yields 71.1 km s–1. Its significance may be assessed by
identical analysis of random datasets, suitably constructed: the distribution obtained
from 104 Monte Carlo trials is shown in Fig. 3, from which it may be inferred that the
chance probability p of obtaining a signal of the strength observed in this period
range is ~ 10–5.”
My parentheses.

Leif Svalgaard (13:31:27) :
There is no such thing as ‘mainstream science’. Science is one. If it is not ‘mainstream’ it is not science.
Nasif Nahle got himself banned for discussing semantics with you and I’m not going there.

tallbloke (13:50:22) :while Fig. 2 is a plot of the redshift differences.
Since you have read it so carefully, perhaps you could explain that is plotted. Differences between what? There are 48 numbers in the game.

Leif Svalgaard (14:28:14) :
tallbloke (13:50:22) :
“while Fig. 2 is a plot of the redshift differences.”
Since you have read it so carefully, perhaps you could explain that is plotted. Differences between what? There are 48 numbers in the game.
My reading of it is that fig2 plots the differences between the 48 redshifts. This would yield a falling factorial of 1.24E61 results… I think. Is that enough to spread around the bins without leaving too many empty ones? 😉

Leif Svalgaard (14:29:14) :
tallbloke (13:50:22) :
The whole point of the harmonic theory is that it scales.
Explain in your own words what that means
[Really! I mean Reeeaaalllly!!!!! Stop it RIGHT NOW ~ charles the disappointed moderator]

tallbloke (15:30:12) :In fact, to avoid unnecessary pedantry, it’s 47+46+45……+3+2+1 results. Which I may or may not bother to calculate.
Carl F. Gauss [as a child] did it thus (47+1)+(46+2)+(45+3)+…(1+47) = 48+48+48+…48 = 48*47 = 2256. Then divide by two, because we have counted everything twice = 1128.
The paper now declares: “Fig. 1 shows the power spectrum of the 48 redshifts obtained after subtraction of this V, while Fig. 2 is a plot of the redshift differences.”
I read that as the difference after the subtraction, of which there should be 48. If we do it your way, there should be 1128/100 [because there are ~100 bins] = 11 per bin which is much lower than the average which I eyeball to be around 17. My point [and that why this discussion is of value] is that you are are too quick to just take their [poorly expressed] word for what the Figure shows, without thinking about if it is reasonable or what it means.
In calculating the difference between galaxy a and galaxy b it does not make much sense first having to subtract the Galactic velocity Vg, because (Va-Vg)-(Vb-Vg)=Va-Vb, so Vg doesn’t enter the picture at all. So, the paper does not survive the simple smell test as all scientists are trained to make. Only pseudo-science enthusiasts will blindly accept something like this without scrutiny.

Leif Svalgaard (16:19:05) :
pseudo-science enthusiasts
More insults.
I will forward your comments to Guthrie and Napier for their amusement.
You still seem to be confused about the velocity being subtracted, and what the reason for subtracting it is. I tried to make it clear for you by adding it in parentheses in a prior post, but there you go.
At least you made is as far as agreeing with me that there were more than 48 results to be plotted in Fig 2 after all.

tallbloke (16:49:11) :You still seem to be confused about the velocity being subtracted, and what the reason for subtracting it is. I tried to make it clear for you by adding it in parentheses in a prior post, but there you go.
No such parentheses visibleAt least you made is as far as agreeing with me that there were more than 48 results to be plotted in Fig 2 after all.
No, only 48 should be plotted. We agree that they plotted many more, but their numbers do not hold up and they shouldn’t have as it does not make sense. E.g. assume that half of them have a speed of 1000 and the other half 1072. Then there would be a very clear quantization. Subtracting one of the 1072s from the 23 others of that number would give you 23 zeroes [and the same for each of those 23 when subtracted from 1072], not exactly useful for quantization.
Where is the insult in called you an ‘enthusiast’ 🙂
I admit that the ‘enthusiasm’ is conjecture on my part part, the pseudo-science is demonstration on your part.Reply: Leif could you tone it down..pretty please? ~ ctm

“Fig. 1 shows the power
spectrum of the 48 redshifts obtained after subtraction of this V (solar motion around galactic centre)
Perhaps I overlooked this little one. But since the solar motion Vg around the galactic center is the same for every one of the 48 spirals, subtracting it makes no difference, as I showed: (Va-Vg)-(Vb-Vg)=Va-Vb, regardless of Vg.

rbateman (17:38:47) :Could we get back to the Sun?
Cycle 24 is moving right along:http://www.leif.org/research/Active-Region-Count.png
The following talks may be of interest [from SOHO-23: http://www.soho23.org/ ]
Updating the Historical Sunspot Record
Leif Svalgaard(INVITED)
Affiliations: Stanford Univ.
Abstract: We show that the amplitude (dD) of the diurnal variation of the magnetic Declination [or the equivalent East Component, Y] is a reliable indicator of solar Far UltraViolet radiation (FUV) and of its proxy, the sunspot Number, R [as was known already to Rudolf Wolf ~160 years ago]. FUV creates and maintains the E-layer of the ionosphere, determining the conductivity, and hence the strength of the current causing the diurnal variation. We show how the changes of sunspot observers are faithfully reflected as discontinuities in the relationship between dD and R. On the whole, sunspot numbers before ~1945 should be adjusted upwards by 20% and before Wolf’s death by another 30%, with the net result that 20th century solar activity does not seem significantly larger than that for the 19th. Support for the above conclusion comes from a comparison with the Greenwich Sunspot Areas which indicate a 17.5% increase of Rz coincident with Max Waldmeier’s tenure as observer in Zurich. The Mount Wilson Ca II K-line index recently derived by Bertello also indicate a 20% increase in Rz ~1945. From 1934 researchers have measured the foF2 frequency of the ionospheric F-layer and found that this measure has a very strong correlation with the sunspot number. It was later noted that the correlation changed ~1945 and has been different since, consistent with the same ~20 percent artificial increase in Rz introduced by Waldmeier. Each of these indications by itself would be just a curious discrepancy for which an ad-hoc explanation might be concocted. Collectively, however, they provide strong evidence for quantifiable inhomogeneities in the sunspot series coincident with changes of observer, and we propose that the series be corrected accordingly.
Title: Does the current minimum help validate (or invalidate) cycle prediction methods?
David Hathaway (INVITED)
Affiliation: NASA
Abstract: A large number of prediction techniques can be used to predict the amplitude and timing of a solar cycle. Of the methods used previously two use indicators that stand out as providing the most reliable and accurate predictions geomagnetic precursors and the Suns polar field strength. When applied properly (i.e. waiting until close to minimum) both methods indicate a small amplitude for Cycle 24. These predictions are consistent with the long low minimum we have observed small cycles start late and leave behind a low minimum. Recently, Flux Transport Dynamo Models have also been used to predict Cycle 24. Two predictions have been offered. One uses sunspot areas and position in previous cycles and a low diffusivity in the convection zone and predicts a very large Cycle 24. The other resets the polar fields at minimum and uses a high diffusivity in the convection zone and predicts a small Cycle 24. Both of these Flux Transport Dynamo Models produce strong polar fields and short cycles when the meridional flow is fast. Measurements of the meridional flow over Cycle 23 now show that while the meridional flow slowed from Cycle 23 minimum in 1996 to Cycle 23 maximum in 2000-2001 it then increased on the approach to Cycle 24 minimum in 2008 to speeds significantly higher than were seen at the previous minimum. In these models this higher meridional flow speed should produce strong polar fields and a short solar cycle contrary to the observed behavior. These observations, along with others, suggest that Flux Transport Dynamo Models do not properly capture solar cycle behavior and are not yet ready to provide predictions of solar cycle behavior.
more at: http://www.leif.org/research/

The first graphic is interesting.
The angle of both SC23 and SC24 at crossing is very shallow.
Now, as for the SSN record, wouldn’t it be better if you took Wolf’s relation (Area * .27)^.775 and synthesize the SSN. If you know the area (and you have the images to back it up) you will retain history and correct the error.
I understand what you are trying to do, I just don’t see why you have chosen to correct that which is not in error over that which is in error. You have the images from which most of period you are considering to correct for, so ultimately you could recount.
Why not just recount and lay down hard & fast sizing rules for counting?
But, this is not really what I would like to see being discussed. I would like to discuss the current events and progress of the Sun, as it exists today.

rbateman (20:01:22) :Why not just recount and lay down hard & fast sizing rules for counting?
Will only go back to 1875, and the most interesting part of the record is the early part. But, I would welcome a recount as important in itself. There are people that do not want a revision of the SSN, because the current [wrong] version suits their purpose well.I understand what you are trying to do, I just don’t see why you have chosen to correct that which is not in error over that which is in error
you’ll have to explain this to me, as you lost me.

Yes, I know you predicted 80+ flux Leif, but it didn’t happen.
The Sun has been doing funny things for almost 3 years now, nothing new there.
I am curious as to what you saw that led you to make that prediction, and why you think the Sun didn’t do that.
Let’s see if the 1026 or 1027 areas hold onto thier signatures like 1024 did.
That process was in super-slo-mo.

Leif Svalgaard (22:42:38) :
Correct that which is not in error=Wolf’s era getting increased.
It is each successive wave that gets higher.
Wolf’s relation is (A*.27)^.775
Wolferer’s relation is (A*.295)^.775
Waldmeier’s is (A*.353)^.775.
Recounting will take us back to 1875 and Wolf’s counting days.

Leif Svalgaard (17:29:12) :
“Fig. 1 shows the power
spectrum of the 48 redshifts obtained after subtraction of this V (solar motion around galactic centre)
Perhaps I overlooked this little one.
Perhaps this is because you didn’t read the paper or my replies to your confusion with an unprejudiced eye.But since the solar motion Vg around the galactic center is the same for every one of the 48 spirals, subtracting it makes no difference, as I showed: (Va-Vg)-(Vb-Vg)=Va-Vb, regardless of Vg.
Clearly you still don’t understand the paper. Maybe the view from the high horse is obscured by cloud. 😉
Your point is true for the Virgo cluster, but the paper by Guthrie and Napier is a much wider study using whole sky data For other cosmic longitudes and latitudes the solar velocity relative to the galactic centre makes a difference of up to +- 220km/s.
One of the upshots of the discoveries is another confirmation reckoning of the absolute motion of the solar system relative to the rest frame If I understand the following passage correctly.
“For differential redshifts within groups spanning at most a few degrees over the sky,
the solar motion correction is differential and of second order. This suggests that
varying V in speed and direction might yield less ambiguity from ‘ghost peaks’ and
so yield a unique solar vector. This turns out to be the case: Fig. 5 shows that the
signal optimizes for a correcting vector indistinguishable, within the errors, from the
solar motion as determined from Galactic HI observations and stellar kinematics.
The nature of the signal being so optimized can be seen by simply plotting the data
corrected for this galactocentric vector (Fig. 6). It is clear that these new, highprecision
data confirm the hypothesis under test. A similar exercise for the 48 Virgo
cluster spirals does not yield a definite Galactic latitude, but the derived solar speed
and longitude are, within their uncertainties, the same.”

rbateman (20:01:22) :But, this is not really what I would like to see being discussed. I would like to discuss the current events and progress of the Sun, as it exists today.
To keep the discussion clean [no L&P], the next max in F10.7 flux is predicted at 120 in 5 years time, so to climb from the current 70 to 120. F10.7 need only increase by 10 sfu per year, or 0.8 per month. At its minimum value back in 2008, F10.7 was 67, so perhaps we could forecast 77 by year’s end, although the beginning of the climb may be a bit shallower, so let’s make it 75.

tallbloke (23:25:22) :Your point is true for the Virgo cluster
Which is what we were discussing [their Figure 2 of 48 spirals].
Today we have hundred of thousands of measured speeds and they show no quantization. But instead of just blindly flogging the old horse, how about explaining the rationale for computing the ~1000 differences [and what they are] plotted rather than the 48. I have read the paper carefully, and explained what my problem with it is, now it is your turn to in your own words expressing your own understanding of their procedure, and explain the numerical discrepancies that I have pointed out.

Leif Svalgaard (17:18:12) :
tallbloke (16:49:11) :
At least you made is as far as agreeing with me that there were more than 48 results to be plotted in Fig 2 after all.No, only 48 should be plotted. We agree that they plotted many more, but their numbers do not hold up and they shouldn’t have as it does not make sense.
You already proved to yourself that the differences between 48 redshifts added up to eleventy hundred results so no more of this nonsense please. E.g. assume that half of them have a speed of 1000 and the other half 1072. Then there would be a very clear quantization. Subtracting one of the 1072s from the 23 others of that number would give you 23 zeroes [and the same for each of those 23 when subtracted from 1072], not exactly useful for quantization.
Well the actual data shows over a thousand differing results and confirms the quantisation around 71km/s. I think you are just muddying the waters by casting aspersions on Guthrie and Napiers peer reviewed mainstream science in order to draw attention away from the importance of their result. The importance being that a proper and unprejudiced assessment would require the letting go of a lot of long held beliefs and the slaying of a couple of sacred cows.
Anyway, I’m tired of putting up with the constant stream of insults I get in return for trying to help uncloud your understanding, so I’ll let Robert have the floor with his more on topic discussion. I hope he won’t mind if I join in with a couple of observations regarding your revision of sunspot number history.

Apologies to Robert, Leif replied while I was writing my last post. This is my last post on this matter for the time being.
Leif Svalgaard (23:48:53) :
tallbloke (23:25:22) :
Your point is true for the Virgo cluster
Which is what we were discussing [their Figure 2 of 48 spirals].
Today we have hundred of thousands of measured speeds and they show no quantization. But instead of just blindly flogging the old horse, how about explaining the rationale for computing the ~1000 differences [and what they are] plotted rather than the 48. I have read the paper carefully, and explained what my problem with it is, now it is your turn to in your own words expressing your own understanding of their procedure, and explain the numerical discrepancies that I have pointed out.
If you had read the paper carefully you’d have seen that Guthrie and Napier extended the Virgo cluster study to many more of the “hundreds of thousands of measured speeds” (Measured with redshifts not rulers, and so not measured speeds at all) and still got the quantisation after accounting for the solar motion you failed to spot or understand.
As far as I can see, the only numerical discrepancy you have pointed out that may be of real contention is your ‘eyeballing’ of the graph as having an average around 17 when according to your estimate it should be around eleven. I’ll take a look at that and await a reply form Guthrie or Napier.

tallbloke (23:59:00) :Anyway, I’m tired of putting up with the constant stream of insults I get in return for trying to help uncloud your understanding
Well, that’s one way of evading the issues, but perhaps it is good for you to call it quits, so we can get back to science.

tallbloke (23:59:00) :You already proved to yourself that the differences between 48 redshifts added up to eleventy hundred results so no more of this nonsense please.
Except that their Figure 2 adds up to much more than 1100. What was my point: that their analysis is flawed, but I’ll accept that you can’t explain how, and let the matter rest.

rbateman (00:02:47) :Max in 2014, September?
If SC24 looks anything like SC14 which it may well:http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
Then the max seems to equally hard to pin down as the min.
rbateman (00:09:55) :Sunspot Number and Area are relevant. We cannot know where the Sun is going if we don’t know where it has been
That’s why we continue to count.
I estimated that 1026 would live a bit longer, but it spent most of its life on the backside, so was spent when we got to see it.
Correcting the old values, rather than the new is not a question of science, but of practicality: there are many operational programs [e.g. by the USAF] that use the sunspot number as input, and they would suffer by a correction, so we correct the old.

Leif Svalgaard (00:33:50) :
tallbloke (23:59:00) :
You already proved to yourself that the differences between 48 redshifts added up to eleventy hundred results so no more of this nonsense please.
Except that their Figure 2 adds up to much more than 1100. [Which] was my point
No, your point was that spreading 48 results between 100 bins would leave many bins with a zero quantity. Which was completely and utterly wrong, and after I straightened you out on the matter, you then came up with your latest.
If you revise sunspot history as loosely as you revise the history of your own argumentation, don’t be surprised if we eye it cautiously.

tallbloke (03:02:10) :“Except that their Figure 2 adds up to much more than 1100.”
No, your point was that spreading 48 results between 100 bins would leave many bins with a zero quantity.
The paper computed a difference between the measured speed and the Galactic one. There are 48 such differences, so there should have been 48 results and therefore many zero bins. You interpreted the paper to say that it meant the differences between all pairs of galaxies. There are 1128 of those, yet Figure 2 shows many more pairs. And you have no explanation for this discrepancy. So, your assumption of pair-wise differences is wrong. Apart from the fact that in order to show quantization of redshifts, computing the pair-wise differences is nonsense.
As I said “their analysis is flawed, but I’ll accept that you can’t explain how”

Leif Svalgaard (00:44:26) :
If SC24 looks anything like SC14 which it may well:
It doesn’t, not yet anyway.Correcting the old values, rather than the new is not a question of science, but of practicality: there are many operational programs [e.g. by the USAF] that use the sunspot number as input, and they would suffer by a correction, so we correct the old.
They are using a number that will and has changed in nature over time. That’s not a comforting thought, building on a base of shifting sand. Surely they have taken the time to assess alternative means.

rbateman (07:43:19) :“If SC24 looks anything like SC14 which it may well”
It doesn’t, not yet anyway.
It was to illustrate that the concept of a sharp maximum is not valid.They are using a number that will and has changed in nature over time. That’s not a comforting thought, building on a base of shifting sand. Surely they have taken the time to assess alternative means.
They are just relying the number to stay reasonable over the short term and count on us to ensure this, the best we can.
Here is a link that explains some of that thinking [especially section 2]

Leif Svalgaard (05:45:01) :
As I said “their analysis is flawed, but I’ll accept that you can’t explain how”
You are the one who thinks it’s flawed, so you should explain how.
They use a statistical analysis technique which has plenty of precedent, according to their paper, and go to some length to explain what they have and haven’t done with it. I’m not a statistician and I am not able to replicate what they did. Their paper passed review and was published, so I expect the reviewers would think that your analysis of their analysis (such as it is; an eyeballing estimate) is flawed.
In any case, they are not the only people who have repeated Tiffts experiment with various other data, and they all agree the quantisation effect is there. That this is swept under the carpet and ignored by the astronomical establishment is hardly surprising, since accepting it would mean the end of the Big Bang theory.
Basically, redshift can be interpreted in a number of ways, and is not proven to be caused by the velocities associated with a hypothetical universal expansion. I’ll leave it as an open question for people who don’t have closed minds.

I read it. Take all available images, measure the areas of the spots, and compute the Rz according to where it stands today. Your record will then be homogenous, and so will future records. You might then be able to dig up more drawings and info from Paris Observatory where Picard and followers very accurately timed transits and extend (though with gaps) the known Rz back to the Maunder.
If you go back and arbitrarily raise the count based on proxies, you leave open the prospect of someone coming along later with evidence of proxy error, proxy relationship change or contamination, and the whole thing is thrown into diarray once again.
You need to think about what happens down the road.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

tallbloke (12:01:22) :You are the one who thinks it’s flawed, so you should explain how.
Which I did in detail.In any case, they are not the only people who have repeated Tiffts experiment with various other data, and they all agree the quantisation effect is there.
The general consensus among people that have looked for this is that there is no effect.Basically, redshift can be interpreted in a number of ways
No, it cannot. There are two ways and both are there: Doppler velocities and Expansion of Space [as explained by General Relativity]. For close galaxies, their individual motions within the group they belong to give rise to a Doppler shift, that is limited in size, otherwise the group would not retain its member. If you want to argue [against modern data and analysis] that those shifts are quantized, go ahead, as those shift are minute [z=0.00024] compared to the shifts that come from expansion of space [z=8 from galaxies and z=1100 from the CMB]. Those high redshifts are not due to motion at all. The galaxies are basically motionless in space.I’ll leave it as an open question for people who don’t have closed minds.
As Al Gore says: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”

rbateman (12:14:04) :If you go back and arbitrarily raise the count based on proxies
There is no arbitrariness here. The use of the Earth as a measuring device is no different from using an amp-meter, where you interpret the proxy that is the angle of the needle from its resting position as a measure of the current. In both cases, a careful calibration is needed. And the calibration will not change [significantly] over time if done carefully the first time.

Leif Svalgaard (12:35:59) :
The use of the Earth as a measuring device is no different from using an amp-meter… And the calibration will not change [significantly] over time if done carefully the first time.
Unless some planet wanders by with a magnet in its pocket.

tallbloke (15:00:30) :Basically, redshift can be interpreted in a number of wayshttp://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
For each of the two correct ways of looking at the redshift there are an unlimited number of pseudo-scientific ‘explanations’ that as the author stresses: “differ from the current approach of modern physics”. If I were you, I would pay more attention to what is known that to this rambling nonsense.[REPLY – Please, people, nothing more to do with evolution. Not many topics are banned here, but that is one of them. ~ Evan]

Geoff Sharp (15:17:37) :Agree, why would you use a proxy when you have the real thing….the spot itself.
rbateman (16:05:09) :
The image is the record of the occurrence.
We don’t have the spot. We observe the spot and different observations using different telescopes and different definitions of what a ‘spot’ is or when it should be counted, so the ‘spot count’ depends on the observer and also on the properties of the spots themselves. The effect of the spot on the Earth does not have that observer bias. All observers at any time observe the same diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field, so this observation can be used to cross calibrate their discordant ‘spot counts’ to a common scale. This is the case for both spot count and area measured. Rudolf Wolf knew this very well and used this to great effect.

Leif Svalgaard (17:00:36) :
We have the integration of the sun captured on plate, film and ccd.
When you are standing in front of that solar table you are looking at a projected image.
Plate, film, ccd or eye take the information from the image.
Plate, film and ccd record the image.
I think it would benefit you greatly to do some measuring.
Then go pay Debrecen a visit.

rbateman (17:36:27) :I think it would benefit you greatly to do some measuring.
Then go pay Debrecen a visit.
I’m fully aware of their work and of measuring in general. But it doesn’t do me any good for getting the historical sunspot number or area time series in a reasonable shape. Even Arlt’s digitization of Staudacher’s drawings still leaves us with an uncalibrated series that we have to join the RGO data via an unknown calibration. http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%20Data%201775-1802.png shows [green dots] the uncalibrated sunspot areas just fitted to be halfway between Wolf and Schatten. I know of only two ways to figure out what the calibration constant is: (1) the geomagnetic variation and (2) the cosmic ray proxies, and the latter is for the moment much too uncertain to be useful.None of the ‘measurement’ issues are relevant, because it is the quality of the original drawings that determines the resulting measures.

You are hopelessly stuck on drawings as the only form of record.
Debrecen has calibrated thier work to RGO.
What do you think Geoff and I have been doing all this time, pulling straws out of thin air?
Measurements and images are more than just relevant, they are the Aces in the deck.
It doesn’t matter how many green dots you put on a graph, the light that left the Sun and hit the carefully prepared medium is as close to the real deal as one can get.
A drawing is an artists conception of reality.

rbateman (18:26:56) :You are hopelessly stuck on drawings as the only form of record.
Debrecen has calibrated thier work to RGO.
What do you think Geoff and I have been doing all this time, pulling straws out of thin air?
Measurements and images are more than just relevant, they are the Aces in the deck.
It doesn’t matter how many green dots you put on a graph, the light that left the Sun and hit the carefully prepared medium is as close to the real deal as one can get.
A drawing is an artists conception of reality.
To make it crystal clear: none of the platitudes you dish out here have ANY relevance to the calibration of Staudacher’s drawings or W, De La Rue’s photographs from the 1850s. If you think so, then explain how, and be specific.

To be specific, Leif, I did not mention Staudacher, I mentioned Picard and La Hire, who calibrated thier drawing by transit. I mentioned Greenwich who ran a system of imaging and projections to painstakingly measure for the purpose of taking the data aquisition out of the pencil & paper age and into the photographic revolution.
As crystal clear as mud: You don’t know how to calibrate technology from 150 years ago?
Let me drop you a clue:
You can ask someone today to reproduce the camera’s of 150 years ago, but you cannot have asked La Rue to build a ccd imager at the time, and be successful.
Platitude?
You can beat the SSN record into proxied mush for all it’s worth, but it won’t do anything to prevent the recurrence of the problems that have repeatedly plagued it..

Leif Svalgaard (16:51:39) :
tallbloke (15:00:30) :
Basically, redshift can be interpreted in a number of wayshttp://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
For each of the two correct ways of looking at the redshift there are an unlimited number of pseudo-scientific ‘explanations’ that as the author stresses: “differ from the current approach of modern physics”.
Marmet’s work on Hydrogen and it’s effect on light transmission has been published in peer reviewed eminent astonomy journals. Your montheism is misplaced. If your science is not a broad enough church to handle competing theories, it’s not science.
Dr. Paul Marmet recently retired from the Physics Faculty at the University of Ottawa. He was formerly a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, in Ottawa, and from 1967 to 1982, he was director of the laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics at Laval University in Quebec. A past president of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Marmet also served as a member of the executive committee for the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada from 1979 to 1984.
He is the author of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity vs. Classical Mechanics, published by Newton Physics Books in Gloucester, Ontario.[REPLY – Please, people, nothing more to do with evolution. Not many topics are banned here, but that is one of them. ~ Evan]
Hi Evan, we are discussing the redshift of the light from distant objects and it’s interpretation within the framework of cosmology and astronomy, “the queen of the sciences”. This is the best science blog – right?
This has nothing, I repeat NOTHING, whatsoever, to do with evolution.

rbateman (21:22:50) :I mentioned Picard and La Hire, who calibrated their drawing by transit.
Which does not help with the sunspot count or areas, because we do not know what criterion was used to include a spot.I mentioned Greenwich who ran a system of imaging and projections to painstakingly measure for the purpose of taking the data aquisition out of the pencil & paper age and into the photographic revolution.
Greenwich is not in doubt, but does not help for the time before 1875.You don’t know how to calibrate technology from 150 years ago?
I do not need to, just to calibrate the result.You can beat the SSN record into proxied mush for all it’s worth, but it won’t do anything to prevent the recurrence of the problems that have repeatedly plagued it..
Since we know what those problems were we can certainly prevent them from recurring.
tallbloke (23:09:11) :If your science is not a broad enough church to handle competing theories, it’s not science.
We are not broad enough to handle just ANY competing theory, e.g. that the Earth is flat or hollow, that the Sun is solid iron, that special relativity is wrong, etc.
Marmet was a well-known crank, who not only believed that the redshift wasn’t a Doppler shift, but also that just about any theory since Newton are wrong: special & general relativity, Maxwell’s equations, quantum mechanics, you name it.
Now, he was correct about the redshift not being a Doppler shift, but for the wrong reason [‘tired light’]. The redshift is due to expansion of space and is not a Doppler shift. The galaxies are motionless in space [apart from very small individual – and real – proper motions around their mean position].
Marmet is so far out that nobody bothers with him. It reflects badly on you that you have been taken in by this nonsense.

Leif Svalgaard (23:44:58) :
tallbloke (23:09:11) :
If your science is not a broad enough church to handle competing theories, it’s not science.
Marmet was a well-known crank,
This is also the line adopted by the AGW ‘mainstream scientists’ like your old colleague Stephen Schneider against people like Dr Roy Spencer and Steve MacIntyre, and it reflects badly on you.Marmet is so far out that nobody bothers with him.
Apart from the editors and reviewers of prominent astronomy journals apparently.
I witness the closing of ranks and the shuffling of feet among the astronomy community. It’s the closing of ranks and the suppression of competing theories in climate science which has caused the derailment of proper science in that field. It’s a tactic backed up by the same attitude in the Queen of the sciences through the efforts of people like yourself to convince the public that there is one voice, one theory, and one truth.
Nothing could be further from the it.
You have reverted to personal insult despite Charles the moderators admonition, and I tend to give as good as I get, so perhaps we should leave it there and ‘move on’.

tallbloke (00:13:18) :suppression of competing theories in climate science which has caused the derailment of proper science in that field.
Not to worry, science is in the end self-correcting, and nonsense like AGW and Marmet [and his ilk] is eventually weeded out.

Leif Svalgaard (01:51:27) :
tallbloke (00:13:18) :
suppression of competing theories in climate science which has caused the derailment of proper science in that field.
Not to worry, science is in the end self-correcting, and nonsense like AGW and Marmet [and his ilk] is eventually weeded out.
I hope science does get out of the quagmire of self delusion it has sunk into. Historically, wrong views have been able to persist for a very long time when the fonts of knowledge have become enclosed in the corridors of power. The power mongers need for a simplistic coherent public message to bolster their hegemony has over-ridden the many faceted search for a better description of reality, and the institutions of science have been willing accomplices in order to garner more golden eggs from the goose of state.
Here’s to a more enlightened future for science with the active participation of all those who seek true knowledge!

tallbloke (02:22:31) :Here’s to a more enlightened future for science with the active participation of all those who seek true knowledge!
Nice words, but hollow, as the seekers’ definitions of ‘true’ are often at variance with the facts.

Leif Svalgaard (02:38:31) :
tallbloke (02:22:31) :
Here’s to a more enlightened future for science with the active participation of all those who seek true knowledge!
Nice words, but hollow, as the seekers’ definitions of ‘true’ are often at variance with the facts.
It used to be a fact that light travels in straight lines only. It used to be a fact that the Hubble ‘constant’ was a lot different to what it is now. It used to be a fact that the atom was indivisible. Facts are not immutable. Especially the ones based on assumptions and inadequate observation/mensuration, which in the final analysis, is nearly all of them.
Any time you are up for discussing the difficulties of detecting hydrogen molecules in space or the direction path and delay time of re-emitted photons is fine with me.
That’s science.
Or you can continue to vilify, insult, deny, denigrate, and degrade yourself in the eyes of others.
That’s not science, it’s rhetoric.

I wonder why aren’t the MODS deleting this mess which has nothing to do with the subject of this Article.
Leif, you failed with your prediction (flux +80) so give it up, ~snip~ nobody knows what’s happening with the sun.

tallbloke (03:18:08) :
Leif Svalgaard (02:38:31) :
tallbloke (02:22:31) :It used to be a fact that light travels in straight lines only.
Still is.Any time you are up for discussing the difficulties of detecting hydrogen molecules in space or the direction path and delay time of re-emitted photons is fine with me.
H2 has been detected: there was about one hydrogen molecule for 250 hydrogen atoms in the early universe about the time which ended with ultraviolet light from the first galaxies and quasars transforming opaque, molecular hydrogen into the transparent, ionized universe we see today.
The absorption/emission of photons cannot lead to redshifts greater than 1 [speed of light]. What makes that idea crackpot is the need to modify all the rest of astronomy and physics to conform, e.g. to claim that the Cosmic Microwave Background [CMB] is not cosmological, but simply the temperature [3K] of space. But the real hallmark of a good theory is its ability to predict. The BB theory predicts that there should be a rather complicated structure to the CMB, a structure that shows up as slightly warmer patches at certain distances from each other. Such a structure is observed, and the result matches very closely the predicted pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PowerSpectrumExt.svg
I see your [and your cohorts] preference for pseudo-science and crackpot theories as peddling the idea of ‘mainstream’ science [as you say] closing ranks as dictated by the power-mongers out there and that there should be a vast sort of conspiracy trying to keep the ‘truth’ from you. This sort of paranoia is not helpful, and is downright detrimental to science. Your ‘vilify, insult, deny, denigrate, and degrade’ bit you can keep to yourself as it is just frustrated diatribe.

tallbloke (03:18:08) :Any time you are up for discussing the difficulties of detecting hydrogen molecules in space
To learn more about H2 in space you can consult:
Molecular hydrogen in space By F. Combes, Guillaume Pineau des Forêts, Cambridge University Press, 2000
Book overview
Molecular hydrogen is the most abundant molecule in the Universe. In recent years, advances in theory and laboratory experiments coupled with breakthrough observations with important new telescopes and satellites have revolutionized our understanding of molecular hydrogen in space. It is now possible to address the question of how molecular hydrogen formed in the early Universe and the role it played in the formation of primordial structures. This volume presents articles from a host of experts who reviewed this new understanding at an international conference in Paris. It covers the theory of the physical processes and laboratory experiments, as well as the latest observations. It will be an invaluable reference for all students and researchers in astrophysics and cosmology.

Leif Svalgaardtallbloke (02:22:31) :
It used to be a fact that light travels in straight lines only.
Still is.
OK Leif, I need an education. (it’s been quite awhile since I took physics) If I remember my physics, light sometimes acts like a wave and sometimes acts like a particle. ie, black holes, singularities (whichever is current) are strong enough gravity wells to trap light. Then there’s the slit experimint where waves counter each other making dark and light stripes. Like I said…may have changed in the last 20 years, I’d like to know what’s new.

Leif Svalgaard (07:11:22) :
tallbloke (03:18:08) :
Any time you are up for discussing the difficulties of detecting hydrogen molecules in space or the direction path and delay time of re-emitted photons is fine with me.
H2 has been detected: there was about one hydrogen molecule for 250 hydrogen atoms in the early universe about the time which ended with ultraviolet light from the first galaxies and quasars transforming opaque, molecular hydrogen into the transparent, ionized universe we see today.
According to Mermet’s citations, there are still plenty of hydrogen atoms floating about in space which are easier for UV to ionise than hydrogen molecules. Due to their strong associative tendency, around twenty times more hydrogen atoms are now paired up as hydrogen molecules now, but due to the spin/charge canceling, they are not detectable via absorption lines with radio telescopes.The absorption/emission of photons cannot lead to redshifts greater than 1 [speed of light].
But according to you, the galaxies aren’t moving, it’s space which is expanding. Nice try at obfuscation though.What makes that idea crackpot is the need to modify all the rest of astronomy and physics to conform, e.g. to claim that the Cosmic Microwave Background [CMB] is not cosmological, but simply the temperature [3K] of space.
This is what is observed in the steady state universe we are left in after the redshift is accounted for by light being delayed by the interstellar medium of hydrogen molecules, according to Mermet’s theory. The hydrogen also accounts for the ‘missing mass’ in Big Bang theory, and has been observationally confirmed by studies of galactic rotation, without the need for ‘dark matter’, (the mysterious black spackle which glues the Big Bang universe together), or the ‘clouds of brown dwarfs’ or other space junk dreamed up by those anxious to save Big Bang theory.But the real hallmark of a good theory is its ability to predict. The BB theory predicts that there should be a rather complicated structure to the CMB, a structure that shows up as slightly warmer patches at certain distances from each other. Such a structure is observed, and the result matches very closely the predicted pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PowerSpectrumExt.svg
There is lots of large scale structure in the universe, as my earlier post from the LEDA data examination shows. It isn’t explained and wasn’t predicted by Big Bang theorists. In fact, it was a steady state theoretician who got the closest to predicting the temperature of the CMB, and the Big Bangers were out by a margin of more than an order of magnitude.I see your [and your cohorts] preference for pseudo-science and crackpot theories as peddling the idea
I’ve patiently explained to you several times that I examine and evaluate the competing theories, Big Bang included, without being “taken in” by any of them. Yet you persist in characterising me and others here as ‘pseudo science crackpots’ ‘taken in’ by other theories than those you personally subscribe to. of ‘mainstream’ science [as you say] closing ranks as dictated by the power-mongers out there and that there should be a vast sort of conspiracy trying to keep the ‘truth’ from you. This sort of paranoia is not helpful, and is downright detrimental to science.
Puhlease. So you don’t think AGW science has been influenced by the paymasters of the political agenda?Your ‘vilify, insult, deny, denigrate, and degrade’ bit you can keep to yourself as it is just frustrated diatribe.
No, it’s yours. Look:
Leif Svalgaard (10:28:58) :
Tomes is ‘not even wrong’. This is just incredible nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard (17:18:12) :
the pseudo-science is demonstration on your part.
Reply: Leif could you tone it down..pretty please? ~ ctm
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:53) :
Most of those folks are pseudo-scientists [creationists and the like] and it is not so much them that I rubbish [as they do not post here], it is you.
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:53) :
assorted pseudo-scientists and creationists, of which we unfortunately have a fairly high [and vocal] proportion on this very blog.
Leif Svalgaard (16:51:39) :
pay more attention to what is known that to this rambling nonsense.
[REPLY – Please, people, nothing more to do with evolution. Not many topics are banned here, but that is one of them. ~ Evan]
You might have fooled Evan the moderator, but you are not fooling me, so leave off the insults, misdirection, obfuscation and general breast beating, and let’s discuss the science.

tallbloke (07:48:26) :The absorption/emission of photons cannot lead to redshifts greater than 1 [speed of light].
But according to you, the galaxies aren’t moving, it’s space which is expanding. Nice try at obfuscation though.
Redshifts are observed to be much larger than 1, z=8 for galaxies, and z=1100 for CMBThere is lots of large scale structure in the universe, as my earlier post from the LEDA data examination shows.
It seems that you did not bother to check out my link.I’ve patiently explained to you several times that I examine and evaluate the competing theories, Big Bang included, without being “taken in” by any of them.
From your posts and the links you provide it is abundantly clear that you do not have the necessary background or elementary knowledge to evaluate those.Puhlease. So you don’t think AGW science has been influenced by the paymasters of the political agenda?
But you cannot [as you do] generalize that to all science. The AGWers are the Marmets of science.insults, misdirection, obfuscation and general breast beating
I call’um as I see’um. I fail to see how you can be insulted by being called a pseudo-scientist, after all that is as far away from mainstream science as one can get, and should make you proud to be on the forefront of your fight against the power-mongers of real science.and let’s discuss the science
Your views forfeit that possibility, it seems. Science progresses nicely without your ‘evaluations’. In today’s climate of science illiteracy, it is important that real science is brought to the masses, and not the fringe stuff you find on dubious sites on the internet.

The absorption/emission of photons cannot lead to redshifts greater than 1 [speed of light].
I’d like a second bite of this cherry. What are you saying here Leif? That the many absorptions and emissions of photons by hydrogen molecules between distant galaxies and us can’t slow light down by more than a factor that would indicate an apparent recessional velocity of more than c?
Why would that be the case?

I don’t think we can even understand the limits of our understanding, but do suspect we are approaching them. Where’s the border beyond which our collective computers, that is human minds, cannot pass? I do think that the delineation of that border might be a useful thing.
=====================================

kim (08:29:21) :
Leif, do you think we understand the nature of the universe?
We do understand a lot already, and the pseudo-scientific theories people peddle claim to understand it even better, e.g.
Geoff Sharp (03:55:22) :others can see through the mist.
tallbloke (08:23:04) :That the many absorptions and emissions of photons by hydrogen molecules between distant galaxies and us can’t slow light down by more than a factor that would indicate an apparent recessional velocity of more than c?
Why would that be the case?
As I read Marmet [you might reread him and clear up any misunderstanding I might have – it is kind of dense and doesn’t make much sense, so perhaps easy to be mislead] to get a redshift, the light beam must decrease in energy [as redder photons have less energy – although Marmet also believes that E = h * frequency is wrong]. It can’t decrease to less energy than zero. Marmet doesn’t believe in relativity either [or in some of it – hard to tell from his obscure writings] and for instance claims that there is no gravitational bending on light, yet ignores the beautiful observations of gravitational lenses, e.g. at http://www.windows.ucar.edu/the_universe/images/ab2218_sm.jpg
The problem with him and other cranks is that they ignore the unity of science.

“I don’t think we can even understand the limits of our understanding, but do suspect we are approaching them.”
Not me! I’ve a long way to go before I reach my limits. Just exploring whether Einstein space can be made up entirely from boosts in Clifford algebra.
I do think that frontier science/philosophy/maths (because they are indistinguishable there) needs to explain itself better to the interested public.

Sandy (09:38:18) :I do think that frontier science/philosophy/maths (because they are indistinguishable there) needs to explain itself better to the interested public.
That is part of the reason I’m on this blog.

Then there’s the slit experimint where waves counter each other making dark and light stripes.
Constructive and destructive wave behavior of light. It’s still taught in Astronomy courses as of 2 years ago, as well as the photon (particle behavior), bending of light by deep gravity wells, refraction and apparent decrease in velocity of light (c).

Sandy 9:38:18 Well, we have one border of our knowledge which limits our vision beyond, and that is the Big Bang itself.
Leif 10:54:04 Re: rationale. Works for me, and apparently others.
========================================

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy